ArticlePsychological research2016
The roles of stimulus and response uncertainty in forced-choice performance: an amendment to Hick/Hyman Law.
Article in Psychological research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reaction time asymmetries provide insight into mechanisms underlying dominant and non-dominant hand selection.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Integrated responding improves prospective memory accuracy.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Modeling the influence of working memory, reinforcement, and action uncertainty on reaction time and choice during instrumental learning.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
- Alzheimer's disease and the processing of uncertainty during choice task performance: Executive dysfunction within the Hick-Hyman law.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2019Article
- Effects of average uncertainty and trial-type frequency on choice response time: A hierarchical extension of Hick/Hyman Law.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hick/Hyman Law describes one of the core phenomena in the study of human information processing: mean response time is a linear function of average uncertainty. In the original work of Hick, (1952) and Hyman, (1953), along with many follow-up studies, uncertainty regarding the stimulus and uncertainty regarding the response were confounded such that the relative importance of these two factors remains mostly unknown. The present work first replicates Hick/Hyman Law with a new set of stimuli and then goes on to separately estimate the roles of stimulus and response uncertainty. The results demonstrate that, for a popular type of task-visual stimuli mapped to vocal responses-response uncertainty accounts for a majority of the effect. The results justify a revised expression of Hick/Hyman Law and place strong constraints on theoretical accounts of the law, as well as models of response selection in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26059726What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.